TY  - GEN
A1  - Jeltsch, Florian
A1  - Bonte, Dries
A1  - Pe'er, Guy
A1  - Reineking, Björn
A1  - Leimgruber, Peter
A1  - Balkenhol, Niko
A1  - Schröder-Esselbach, Boris
A1  - Buchmann, Carsten M.
A1  - Müller, Thomas
A1  - Blaum, Niels
A1  - Zurell, Damaris
A1  - Böhning-Gaese, Katrin
A1  - Wiegand, Thorsten
A1  - Eccard, Jana
A1  - Hofer, Heribert
A1  - Reeg, Jette
A1  - Eggers, Ute
A1  - Bauer, Silke
T1  - Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research
BT  - exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics
N2  - Movement of organisms is one of the key mechanisms shaping biodiversity, e.g. the distribution of genes, individuals and species in space and time. Recent technological and conceptual advances have improved our ability to assess the causes and consequences of individual movement, and led to the emergence of the new field of ‘movement ecology’. Here, we outline how movement ecology can contribute to the broad field of biodiversity research, i.e. the study of processes and patterns of life among and across different scales, from genes to ecosystems, and we propose a conceptual framework linking these hitherto largely separated fields of research. Our framework builds on the concept of movement ecology for individuals, and demonstrates its importance for linking individual organismal movement with biodiversity. First, organismal movements can provide ‘mobile links’ between habitats or ecosystems, thereby connecting resources, genes, and processes among otherwise separate locations. Understanding these mobile links and their impact on biodiversity will be facilitated by movement ecology, because mobile links can be created by different modes of movement (i.e., foraging, dispersal, migration) that relate to different spatiotemporal scales and have differential effects on biodiversity. Second, organismal movements can also mediate coexistence in communities, through ‘equalizing’ and ‘stabilizing’ mechanisms. This novel integrated framework provides a conceptual starting point for a better understanding of biodiversity dynamics in light of individual movement and space-use behavior across spatiotemporal scales. By illustrating this framework with examples, we argue that the integration of movement ecology and biodiversity research will also enhance our ability to conserve diversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.
T3  - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 401 
KW  - mobile links
KW  - species coexistence
KW  - community dynamics
KW  - biodiversity conservation
KW  - long distance movement
KW  - landscape genetics
KW  - individual based modeling
Y1  - 2017
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-401177
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Zurell, Damaris
A1  - König, Christian
A1  - Malchow, Anne-Kathleen
A1  - Kapitza, Simon
A1  - Bocedi, Greta
A1  - Travis, Justin M. J.
A1  - Fandos, Guillermo
T1  - Spatially explicit models for decision-making in animal conservation and restoration
JF  - Ecography : pattern and diversity in ecology / Nordic Ecologic Society Oikos
N2  - Models are useful tools for understanding and predicting ecological patterns and processes. Under ongoing climate and biodiversity change, they can greatly facilitate decision-making in conservation and restoration and help designing adequate management strategies for an uncertain future. Here, we review the use of spatially explicit models for decision support and to identify key gaps in current modelling in conservation and restoration. Of 650 reviewed publications, 217 publications had a clear management application and were included in our quantitative analyses. Overall, modelling studies were biased towards static models (79%), towards the species and population level (80%) and towards conservation (rather than restoration) applications (71%). Correlative niche models were the most widely used model type. Dynamic models as well as the gene-to-individual level and the community-to-ecosystem level were underrepresented, and explicit cost optimisation approaches were only used in 10% of the studies. We present a new model typology for selecting models for animal conservation and restoration, characterising model types according to organisational levels, biological processes of interest and desired management applications. This typology will help to more closely link models to management goals. Additionally, future efforts need to overcome important challenges related to data integration, model integration and decision-making. We conclude with five key recommendations, suggesting that wider usage of spatially explicit models for decision support can be achieved by 1) developing a toolbox with multiple, easier-to-use methods, 2) improving calibration and validation of dynamic modelling approaches and 3) developing best-practise guidelines for applying these models. Further, more robust decision-making can be achieved by 4) combining multiple modelling approaches to assess uncertainty, and 5) placing models at the core of adaptive management. These efforts must be accompanied by long-term funding for modelling and monitoring, and improved communication between research and practise to ensure optimal conservation and restoration outcomes.
KW  - adaptive management
KW  - biodiversity conservation
KW  - cost optimisation
KW  - ecosystem restoration
KW  - global change
KW  - predictive models
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05787
SN  - 1600-0587
IS  - 4
SP  - 1
EP  - 16
PB  - Wiley-Blackwell
CY  - Oxford
ER  -